Nancy Pelosi and Syria

I applaud Nancy Pelosi’s visit to Syria and conversing with Syrian president Al-Hasad. The democrats promised a new direction in policy and this action which Ms. Pelosi has taken show they mean what they say. The current administrations policy on middle-east affairs is one of isolation, refusal to communicate with the Arab world and dropping bombs. Ms. Pelosi has shown the new direction that the democrats want to take is one of dialogue and diplomacy.

I urge everyone to write, call or email Ms. Pelosi and offer your support to her actions. She has taken a lot of criticism from this administration and conservatives. However, Americans have overwhelmingly voted for a new direction by giving both the house and senate majority to the democrats.

Americans need a new mindset; they need to rid their vocabulary of the words “terrorist” and “terrorism”. This year marks the 40th anniversary of Israel’s occupation of Palestine. For 40 years the Arabs of Palestine have been living under occupation and oppression. And yet Americans wonder why such hatred is coming from the Arab world. That answer is very straightforward, yet, American ego has blinded them to the truth.

It is time to stop the unquestioning support to Israel; it is time to pressure Israel to comply with UN resolutions 242 and 338. As the former president of Syria once stated, why the double standard, why use military force to make Saddam Hussein comply with UN resolutions and yet do nothing when Israel refuses to comply.

The United States will now apply pressure to Iran to comply with the latest UN resolution concerning their nuclear weapons program, what about pressuring Israel to comply with UN resolution 242 and 338?

Wake up America, the tragedies in New York on September 11th was indeed a wake up call to the United States; however, they missed the message.

Throughout history, violence has never solved a single problem, never!

Dialogue and diplomacy and an open mind is the only answer to peace in the world, not isolationism and bombs.

Pelosi is an idiot. The first thing she did when she got into power was go on a tantrum about how Bush needed to work with the dumocrates. And what does she do? She defies the President of the United States. What an idiot.

#2 Comment By Paul Dupont On April 10, 2007 @ 2:18 am

No C, The idiot is the one who destabilized the area by invading Iraq. Like it or not, Syria is a major player in the area and has alot to gain by retoring some balance.

#3 Comment By Brian On April 10, 2007 @ 3:58 am

I don’t so much mind the speaker of the house going somewhere against the presdents wishes. It’s the fact that she mis-represented our gov’t., as well as the gov’t of Israel while she was there.

#4 Comment By Republican Guy On April 10, 2007 @ 7:57 am

I’m sick of all the bashing of Nancy Pelosi. All the name-calling and whining just sounds like sour grapes from my fellow partisans who are still peeved about losing the House and Senate — and handing over the powerful Speaker’s position to a woman, no less.

In my book, anything that Pelosi can do to discourage terrorism and conflict is a good thing.

Lord knows that Bush and Cheney can use all the help they can get when it comes to foreign relations. In just six years, they have done more damage to the Republican Party than I could have ever imagined.

#5 Comment By Jon H. On April 10, 2007 @ 10:01 am

Pelosi should re-read her job description.

#6 Comment By niko On April 10, 2007 @ 2:43 pm

How dare the Bush administration blame Pelosi for cajoling terrorists? These hypocrites are very tight with a certain dangerous nation called Saudi Arabia. If you havenâ€™t been listening to the Cheney brainwashing attempts, you know that the 9/11 bombers are Saudi. Whoâ€™s â€œbehaving badly,â€? Dick?

#7 Comment By Albert Campbell On April 10, 2007 @ 7:17 pm

Editor:

THIS WAS A STUPID THING TO DO!!!!!

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi was having tea with Syrian leader Bashar Assad. The people with whom I met were outraged and commented, â€œWhat sheâ€™s doing…having tea with terrorists…gets our people killed.â€?

A US State Department spokesperson stated, â€œThis is a country that is a state-sponsor of terror, one that is trying to disrupt the Senora government in Lebanon, and one that is allowing foreign fighters to flow into Iraq from its borders.â€? It was suggested that perhaps Speaker Pelosi should â€œtake a step back and think about the messageâ€? she was sending to terrorists worldwide.

There is speculation that her trip is an indication that she plans to take an active role in US foreign policy. The White House insists that behavior such as Pelosiâ€™s can do more harm than good.

#8 Comment By cowboy On April 10, 2007 @ 8:17 pm

Nancy Pelosi is working very hard at trying to play President. My question is, what the hell was she doing over there in the first place? She has no authority, no jurisdiction and does not represent any part of the government. She can’t sign any treaties, make any peace deals or comment on what the President will or will not do. She is the typical Democrat, she thinks that she can go over there and “talk” them into anything because that’s the way the Democrats do it. She is in a place where she has no business, has no authority and trying to make it look like she is someone of importance in the decision making dept. of foriegn affairs. Regardless of whether she thinks the President is right or not, he is still the President. For her to go against his orders about contacting terrorists, should be grounds for treason, but she did it anyway as if telling the President, I’m doing this anyway, your orders don’t mean anything to me, I’m the speaker of the house. As far as a majority in the House and Senate. I’d hardly call one vote a majority. They can’t even put a military spending bill together without spending $22 billion dollars on pork barrel spending to buy the necessary votes to pass it, hardly a majority. The best the Democrats have accomplished since they took office is chaos, disorganization and disruption. They have ceased trying to run our country, everything has stopped and the only goal they have is to stop the war in Iraq, regardless of what it costs or who pays for it. They’ll use any under-handed double talking sleazy method that will work. They are determined to cut and run, no matter how many troops it kills in the mean time. All the while saying that they are standing behind our troops, while they do their best to cut their throats.

#9 Comment By Tbone On April 11, 2007 @ 7:57 am

Cowboy-

Was it OK for dennis hastert to travel to colombia in 1997 to sway foreign policy? Was it OK for newt gingerich to travel to china to sway foreign policy?

#10 Comment By niko On April 11, 2007 @ 8:31 am

Cowboy, as Tbone points out, Congressionals go overseas to talk foreign policy ALL THE TIME. Cheney would have you think this is the first time its happened.

Hey Albert, you actually beleive what the State Department is telling you? How can you trust one word that comes out of their mouths after the last 6 years of blatant lies? Again, why is Syria sponsoring terrorism but Saudi Arabia is not?

#11 Comment By Cooper On April 11, 2007 @ 9:23 am

from the Jewish news agency jta.org:

“The speaker conveyed precisely what the prime minister and the acting president asked,” (Tom) Lantos told JTA. That included the traditional Israeli caveat about Syrian backing for terrorism.

Delegation members suggested that after the meeting with Olmert, they were left wondering why Olmert was eager to convey such a routine message â€“ that Israel would talk peace if Syria ended its backing for terrorism.

The answer, Lantos said, suggested itself the morning after, when Israeli papers said Olmert was concerned that Assad was gearing up for a summer war based on the misconception that Israel was ready to attack in concert with a U.S. strike on Iran. Olmert had no such intentions.

The leaks to the papers suggested that Olmert’s message was less one of new content than of timing. By conveying a peaceful message, Olmert wanted to make sure Assad understood that Israel was not in an aggressive posture.

If that was the case, why did Olmert need to make a clarification, as Israelis were not speaking on the record. Lantos suggested there was pressure from the White House.

“It’s obvious the White House is desperate to find some phony criticism of the speaker’s trip, even though it was a bipartisan trip,” said Lantos, a Holocaust survivor who is considered the Democrat closest to the pro-Israel lobby. “I have nothing but contempt and disdain for the attempt to undermine this trip.”

The White House had no comment on the allegations by Lantos that it pressured Olmert to offer a clarification.

Such backdoor statecraft between the White House and Olmert would not be unprecedented.

Last year, U.S. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice talked Olmert into a 48-hour cease-fire during the war with Hezbollah to allow humanitarian relief, but within hours Israeli planes were bombing again, to Rice’s surprise and anger. Olmert had received a call, apparently from Cheney’s office, telling him to ignore Rice.

Members of the delegation understood the fine line Olmert must walk between the two Israeli foreign policy imperatives that are clashing now for the first time: Never stray from a pro-Israel president’s foreign policy, and never turn away an Arab offer to talk peace.

Still, Olmert’s abruptness and tone left the delegation feeling he was “clumsy,” one participant said.

In his interview with Limbaugh, Cheney gloated over Olmert’s role. . .

In fact, White House frustration might have to do with a foreign policy spinning out of its control.

After the White House berated Pelosi for even daring to visit Assad, it was revealed that congressional Republican delegations were in Damascus at about the same time just as eager to relay the same message as the Pelosi team: Talking is better than not talking.

“Dialogue is not a sign of weakness,” Rep. Joe Pitts (R-Pa.) told his hometown newspaper, the Lancaster Intelligencer Journal, after he returned home. “It’s a sign of strength.”

#12 Comment By cowboy On April 11, 2007 @ 11:42 am

#9,10

To best of my knowledge, in 1997 when Hastert went to Columbia, they were not financing, supporting and training terrorists to fight in another country that we are at war with and I never seen anything like this happening in China either. Using peace time standards to dictate war conditions is ludricous. This amounts to about the same thing as Nancy Pelosi going and talking to Stalin during the second world war. She had no buisness over there or any of the others. That’s not their job, they have no authority and all they are trying to do is cut our throat by trying to make “deals” with Syria. Just because something is done in peace time, does not make it acceptable in time of war. What she hoped to gain was to be able to say that she did something the President couldn’t if she managed to bring some kind of “peace” deal back with her. Just to help you two put things into perspective, this is not peace time and this doesn’t concern foreigh policy. This is a direct attempt to defy white house directives of not talking to or trying to make any deals with Syria. As much as Nancy Pelosi and these other people would like to think so, they are still not above answering to the President, whether they approve of his actions or not. Like they say in the private sector, the boss may not always be right, but he is always the boss. These people need to learn this and apply it to their lives. Hastert and Ginerich went to those countries on behalf of the President. Nancy Pelosi and the others went to Syria against direct orders from the President not to do so. Her main attempt was to stir up problems here, not to find some “peace” agreement with Syria. It’s a sad day indeed when our elected officials defy orders because they think they have a better way to do things. This amounts to the same thing as you working on a job and the boss telling you not to do somehting and you do it anyway. There’s no excuse, none whatsoever.

#13 Comment By Tbone On April 11, 2007 @ 2:48 pm

Cowboy–

The preznit is in no way, shape, or form, the “boss” of Nanci Pelosi. You see, in the American system of democracy, there are 3 SEPERATE BUT EQUAL branches of gov’t. Bush is no more Pelosi’s boss than Pelosi is Cheif Justice John Robert’s boss. Congress serves as a check and balance to the executive branch, not as a servant to the exec. branch.

Your statement “Hastert and Gingerich went to those countries on behalf of the president” is outright false. Yea, Clinton is going to send two of his biggest rivals to another country. Yea, right. That’s like bush giving a job to someone who isn’t republican, rich, and white.

I don’t know about the gingerich trip, but hastert went to colombia to directly bypass clinton. In other words, he went directly to influence foreign policy. While Pelosi was in Syria, she actually backed up shrub’s message – not contradict it, which is EXACTLY what hastert did. Blatant falsehood on your part.

Furthermore – we are not at war with Syria, as your first sentence states. And, wasn’t Statlin on OUR side during WWII? Or, at least, not on Germany’s side? Terrible analogy. Since we arent at war with Syria (yet), there is no peace to negoiate.

And, cowboy, (all hat no cattle?) this is peacetime. When did congress formally declare war?

Man, the outright falsehoods just keep coming. Bush never gave Pelosi an order to stay out of Syria. In fact, the DAY before she left, she told bush she was going to syria. Bush’s response? none. Kinda like hurricane Katrina.

Got any more spin for us to straighten out?

#14 Comment By cowboy On April 11, 2007 @ 6:09 pm

#13 Tbone

I kind of figured I’d get no less from you. You asked, when did congress declare war? Wake up and smell the coffee. They declared war before we went into Iraq, both houses signed it. You seem to need to do a little digging on what happens when we declare war. In fact a majority of our “elected” politicans should also. You seem to know a lot that no one else knows. You got an inside track on the happenings in Washington or are you just listening to scuttlebutt that you’ve heard somewhere down the line and it sounds good, so repeat it. I’ll not even try and dignify the rest of your rants with an answer. You seem to know so much more than anybody else, maybe you’re in the wrong field. This country could use more Democrats to show us the way to regression and falsehood. Any takers?

#15 Comment By Karl On April 11, 2007 @ 7:24 pm

Surprised that no one has mentioned this, but the day before Pelosi got there, Darrell Issa (R-CA) and Joe Pitts (R-PA) were in Syria meeting with Assad. And no, they were not delivering Bush’s message (obvious because just by being there, they were defying him). Just a bit of a double standard, don’t you think?

Contrary to popular belief, this nation should not be run by just the Republicans or just the Democrats. There is middle ground in every issue, by both parties trying to shove things down the other one’s throat, we loose our political system. One party shoves this country one direction for 4 to 8 years, then the other party does the same thing, only shoving it the other direction. What happened to bipartisanship? It went the way of our political parties. Down the tubes. My grandfather told me, when we get down to two political parties, we vote for the lesser of two evils and I think he was right. We voted for the Democrats because we didn’t like what the Republicans were doing, now the Democrats don’t show any signs of progress on anything they said they would do. You talk about segragation, it’s no wonder that our elected officials don’t get anything done. Before the last election, the Democrats said that they would do what the Republicans had failed to do. Practice Bipartisonship and everybody believed them, once elected, it went out the window and has not even been allowed to happen, let alone instigate it. The Republican shut out the Democrats, the Democrats shut out the Republicans. When does it end and our elected officials get back to working together to effectively run our government? My guess is, it will never happen. Even “Joe” Public is sharply divided, either Democrat or Republican, with neither side seeing or saying anything good about the other. It’s a hell of a way to run a country.

#18 Comment By Tbone On April 12, 2007 @ 7:20 am

Cowboy–

Sorry to burst your bubble, but congress did not declare war. Show me the formal declaration of war. What they did do is pass the AUMF – authorization to use military force – as a last resort. Maybe you are the one that needs to do a little digging on how our gov’t declares war.

Its quite funny that your post talks about democrats and falsehood, when your previous post was completely wrong. Every aspect of it. You can’t respond to my post, so you resort to name-calling and subject-changing. I’d expect no less.

#19 Comment By Voice of the masses On April 12, 2007 @ 9:31 am

Tbone you are right. The Democrats didn’t declare war, they just told President Bush to do whatever he wanted and keep giving him money. AND, the Democrats are going to give him MORE money now to continue this illegal war – in direct opposition to what they told us. The decision is simple – QUIT GIVING BUSH THE MONEY and the war will stop. We will end up fighting terrorists here at home, but that is inevitable, so we might as well get it on.

The Democrats and Republicans only understand one thing, spending money. They have no honor, nor good intentions. They are only concerned with elections and re-election. The Republicans spend our money on the war lobby. The Democrats spend our money on the social lobby.

How badly we are need of leaders in this country!

#20 Comment By cowboy On April 12, 2007 @ 9:40 am

#18 Tbone
Another one of them. Sorry, you don’t listen, you just talk, so I won’t waste my time trying to educate you.

#21 Comment By Mike D. On April 12, 2007 @ 1:36 pm

God help this country, We are the most paranoid country on the planet, if we stop wasting billions of dollars and our childrens lives in Iraq the terrorists will follow us here, what B.S. Now would be the best time for them to come here, our military is over extended in the middle east we have no border security or port security. But yet no attacks, not because of Bush or that we have them surrounded in Iraq. It is simply because they want us out of the middle east! We could sustain ourselves with alternative sources of energy but unfortunately all the people in charge of our government are in the oil industry. The right has been bashing pelosi since day one, or anyone else who wants peace. These people do not want peace, diplomacy leads to peace not shutting down communication. They have to keep you scared by using the word terrorists as often as possible. Bush & Co. have been wrong at every turn, but suddenly they have the right plan and only a blank check will make it work. They don’t care about the American people they just want to take as much of our treasury as they can while they are in office, no timetable no end to the rape of the good ol US people. I’m sick of it, I’m sick of the two party system, I’m sick of the fighting on the (supposed) news shows. I’m sick of Limbaugh, Hannity, O’reilly, Coulter, Dennis Miller, Michael Savage, Fox news, Fox radio all spreading the propoganda of King George. He even says he doesn’t care what the American people think he will do what he wants. It seems the Democracy is far more important in Iraq than in the U.S. We no longer have a democracy, bush believes the people are there to serve him, not that he is there to serve the people. I’m sick, sick, sick of it ALL!!!!!!!!!

#22 Comment By Bainbridge Sucks On April 13, 2007 @ 10:27 am

I’m sick of people on both sides of the liberal and conservative spectrum who seem intent on bringing America into a new Civil War.

Newsflash, we are in a war with Muslims who want to enslave the world. I know that the Democrats (and some Republicans) may want to submit to Islamic rule, but I dont’.

#23 Comment By Tom On April 17, 2007 @ 5:20 am

Bainbridge nailed it on the head. This extreme partisan attitude in this country is going to be our downfall. Rather than work together for the common good – our country and its citizens – both sides oppose each other for sport, resulting in no true forward progress.

News flash…Congress did approve the attack on Iraq. Remember 9/11? The nation was unified in wanting action. Now conveniently, many seem to have forgotten this. Terrorism is real and coherting with them makes us look foolish..all for Nancy’s little tea party!